> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob <jerinjac...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 4:12 PM
> To: tho...@monjalon.net
> Cc: Joyce Kong <joyce.k...@arm.com>; Gavin Hu <gavin...@arm.com>;
> step...@networkplumber.org; david.march...@redhat.com;
> m...@smartsharesystems.com; jer...@marvell.com;
> bruce.richard...@intel.com; ravi1.ku...@amd.com; rm...@marvell.com;
> shsha...@marvell.com; xuanziya...@huawei.com;
> cloud.wangxiao...@huawei.com; zhouguoy...@huawei.com; Honnappa
> Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Phil Yang
> <phil.y...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/6] lib/eal: implement the family of PMD
> bit operation APIs
>
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2020 at 1:37 PM Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > 02/04/2020 09:20, Gavin Hu:
> > > Hi Thomas,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 5:45 PM
> > > > To: Joyce Kong <joyce.k...@arm.com>; Gavin Hu
> <gavin...@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: step...@networkplumber.org; david.march...@redhat.com;
> > > > m...@smartsharesystems.com; jer...@marvell.com;
> > > > bruce.richard...@intel.com; ravi1.ku...@amd.com;
> rm...@marvell.com;
> > > > shsha...@marvell.com; xuanziya...@huawei.com;
> > > > cloud.wangxiao...@huawei.com; zhouguoy...@huawei.com;
> Honnappa
> > > > Nagarahalli <honnappa.nagaraha...@arm.com>; Phil Yang
> > > > <phil.y...@arm.com>; nd <n...@arm.com>; dev@dpdk.org; nd
> > > > <n...@arm.com>
> > > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v7 1/6] lib/eal: implement the family of
> PMD
> > > > bit operation APIs
> > > >
> > > > 01/04/2020 10:27, Gavin Hu:
> > > > > Hi Thomas,
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 09/03/2020 10:54, Joyce Kong:
> > > > > > > Bitwise operation APIs are defined and used in a lot of PMDs,
> > > > > > > which caused a huge code duplication.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Statistics of the series: 653 insertions(+), 326 deletions(-)
> > > > > > I would not say it is a huge duplication.
> > > > > We did not include all PMDs, just a few for piloting and seeking
> opinions.
> > > > > It is a huge duplication when counting all the PMDs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > To reduce duplication,
> > > > > > > this patch consolidates them into a common API family.
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > > +PMD Bitops
> > > > > > > +M: Joyce Kong <joyce.k...@arm.com>
> > > > > > > +F: lib/librte_eal/common/include/rte_pmd_bitops.h
>
> Change to lib/librte_eal/include/rte_pmd_bitops.h. Check top of tree.
Yes, will rebase in v8.
>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why is it called PMD bitops and not simply bitops?
> > > > >
> > > > > The scope of these APIs are decreased to PMD use only, for
> > > > libraries/applications, it is recommended to use C11 directly as there
> are
> > > > complications of more ordering models involved.
> > > >
> > > > OK, but PMD means nothing, except this is where it is used *now*.
> > > > Please describe and name the API with memory ordering words.
> > > Will remove 'PMD' in v8.
> > > The APIs were already named with a '_relaxed' suffix, for example
> 'rte_get_bit64_relaxed'.
> > > According to Honnappa, this patch set just address PMD's requirement,
> and the current PMDs are not using C11, so only '_relaxed' version is
> offered.
> > >
> http://inbox.dpdk.org/dev/VE1PR08MB514983C3200859B27F166EBB983F0
> @VE1PR08MB5149.eurprd08.prod.outlook.com/
> >
> > So why not calling this component "relaxed bitops"?
>
> In the future, we can extend to more memory orders as needed. IMO,
> Just changing to rte_bitops.h is enough.
Ok, will change to rte_bitops.h to leave room for future extension.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
